Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Rice Suggests Carter Confused Peace Process

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805

    Rice Suggests Carter Confused Peace Process

    [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/middleeast/23gulf.html?hp"]NY TIMES[/URL]


    April 23, 2008

    Rice Suggests Carter Confused Peace Process
    By ROBERT F. WORTH

    KUWAIT — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed concern on Tuesday that former president Jimmy Carter’s recent meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal could confuse American efforts to broker a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord.

    “We wanted to make sure there would be no confusion and there would be no sense that Hamas was somehow a party to peace negotiations" between Israel and more moderate Palestinians, said Ms. Rice, speaking on the margins of an international meeting here on aid to Iraq.

    Ms. Rice also affirmed that the State Department had explicitly advised Mr. Carter not to meet with Hamas, which the United States considers a terrorist group. Mr. Carter told National Public Radio on Monday that he had not received a clear signal from the Bush administration before leaving on his Middle East tour last week.

    “We counseled President Carter against going to the region and particularly against having contacts with Hamas,” Ms. Rice said, responding to questions from reporters.

    Mr. Carter has defended his personal diplomacy with Hamas, which controls Gaza, saying any final peace settlement would have to include the militant group.

    Ms. Rice spoke after the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, made an urgent appeal for greater international support to Iraq, and he voiced frustration with fellow Arab nations for failing to send ambassadors and relieve Iraq’s debts.

    “It is hard for us to understand why our Arab brothers do not exchange diplomats with Iraq,” Mr. Maliki said, speaking at a gathering of Iraq’s neighbors and other backers here. He added that “some Western countries have kept their diplomatic missions in Baghdad, and have not given security as an excuse.”

    Mr. Maliki and Ms. Rice have made similar appeals at two similar meetings over the past year. Those have resulted in numerous rhetorical expressions of support, and even pledges to send ambassadors to Iraq, but little tangible progress.

    Ms. Rice seemed sanguine about aid to Iraq, saying debt relief was on the way and that diplomatic issues would soon be resolved. The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, speaking to reporters alongside Ms. Rice and the Turkish foreign minister, said “we have to be patient with our Arab brothers.”

    He also said: “I think the will is there – they want to reach out and they recognize that their absence is not helpful.”

    But Mr. Maliki sounded a harsher note, suggesting that Arab countries had failed to appreciate Iraq’s struggles over the past five years, and adding that Iraq’s debts were accrued during wars waged by Saddam Hussein, not by the current regime.

    The efforts to aid Iraq have been complicated by an issue that remained largely unspoken at the conference: many Sunni Arab countries are deeply suspicious of Shiite Iran, and anxious about Iran’s powerful influence in Iraq’s new Shiite-led government.

    Sectarian political issues also lurked behind an afternoon meeting about the political crisis in Lebanon, to which Syria and Iran – which support the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah -- were not invited. That omission provoked an angry response from Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem.

    Mr. Moallem accused the United States of trying to “strengthen its hegemony” over Lebanon by pushing its allies to act unilaterally. He also lashed out at Arab League Secretary General Amr Mousa, who attended the meeting, and Terje Roed-Larsen, a United Nations special envoy to Lebanon whom Mr. Moallem accused of arranging it.

    “All these issues are intertwined — Iraq, Iran, Lebanon,” said Abdullah al Shayji, a professor of political science at Kuwait University, who attended the conference. “That’s part of the reason they are so difficult to solve.”

  2. #2
    Where Carter gets his huge ego from is beyond me.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Valley Stream, N.Y.
    Posts
    2,969
    Well, when you're a "Nobel Peace Prize Winner," right up there in the ranks of Al Gore and Yasser Arafat, I guess there's some inevitable head-swelling. Of course, the Nobel committee loves to tweak the nose of the U.S. Gov't with who they hand out their awards to, so there's that to consider as well.

  4. #4
    Right, because Condi accomplished so much in the region. What progress have you achieved in Israeli-Palistinian relations in the last 8 years Condi???It amazes me how an administration that has been dead wrong about everything in its policy re the Middle East has the audacity to criticize others.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2494809]Where Carter gets his huge ego from is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

    Ego??
    The man may have sucked a$$ as president, but he has dedicated his entire life towards achieving peace in the ME. He has nothing to gain by doing this. Carter truly believes he is dong good . Give the man that much, even if you disagree with him.

  6. #6
    ...because Condi was soooo good at ending war! :yes:

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2494884]Right, because Condi accomplished so much in the region. What progress have you achieved in Israeli-Palistinian relations in the last 8 years Condi???It amazes me how an administration that has been dead wrong about everything in its policy re the Middle East has the audacity to criticize others.[/QUOTE]the palestinians gave up peace with israel a long time ago.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2494939]the palestinians gave up peace with israel a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

    No they did not. Negotiations fell apart. Both sides to blame. If Condi had any credibility as a negotiator she would have been busting her a$$ trying to get the two sides together. But she quit on the process. She has accomplished nothing. Like her boss, she is one of the worst at her jobs ...ever.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2494947]No they did not. Negotiations fell apart. Both sides to blame. If Condi had any credibility as a negotiator she would have been busting her a$$ trying to get the two sides together. But she quit on the process. She has accomplished nothing. Like her boss, she is one of the worst at her jobs ...ever.[/QUOTE]exactly what fell apart?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2494957]exactly what fell apart?[/QUOTE]

    The Israelis continues to build settlements and the Palestinians could not curb the terror attacks.

  11. #11
    A Nation should speak with one voice when it comes to international relations, both with friends and with enemies.

    It is a dangerous trend to see people, of either stripe, who believe they can simply go around the policy of the United States whenever it suits them, and engage in diplomacy on their own accord. Carter's intent may be noble, but his actions are still wrong.

    All one needs to realize the inherant truth of this, is to picture former President G.W. Bush acting outside any future administrations, and performing his own version of diplomacy as HE thinks it should be, without approval, contradictory to U.S. Policy, and contradictory to any future administrations wishes.

    We have an elected Government, and part of their mandate is to craft and handle Foreign Policy. When we start letting any unelected unofficial representative who disagrees with the current administration carry on a shadow Foreign Policy, the only end result is a bad one for our Nation.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2494890]Ego??
    The man may have sucked a$$ as president, but he has dedicated his entire life towards achieving peace in the ME. He has nothing to gain by doing this. Carter truly believes he is dong good . Give the man that much, even if you disagree with him.[/QUOTE]

    if he gave his entire life to achieving peace in the ME he is as big a failure as any politician in the history of this country.

    Guess what there is no peace in the ME and meeting with terrorist is NOT the way to get there.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2494996]A Nation should speak with one voice when it comes to international relations, both with friends and with enemies.

    It is a dangerous trend to see people, of either stripe, who believe they can simply go around the policy of the United States whenever it suits them, and engage in diplomacy on their own accord. Carter's intent may be noble, but his actions are still wrong.

    All one needs to realize the inherant truth of this, is to picture former President G.W. Bush acting outside any future administrations, and performing his own version of diplomacy as HE thinks it should be, without approval, contradictory to U.S. Policy, and contradictory to any future administrations wishes.

    We have an elected Government, and part of their mandate is to craft and handle Foreign Policy. When we start letting any unelected unofficial representative who disagrees with the current administration carry on a shadow Foreign Policy, the only end result is a bad one for our Nation.[/QUOTE]


    well, carter isn't acting as an agent of the united states government, he is acting as a private citizen who feels he may have influence in creating a more open discussion between Hamas and Isreal..

    I mean, would your little speech here mean anything if he was, say Bill Gates?

  14. #14
    yes Carter is confusing the message, from Bush to the region which is "F--k you"

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=piney;2495021]well, carter isn't acting as an agent of the united states government, he is acting as a private citizen who feels he may have influence in creating a more open discussion between Hamas and Isreal..

    I mean, would your little speech here mean anything if he was, say Bill Gates?[/QUOTE]

    Speech? Just an opinion is all. Sorry if you felt I was pontificating. I suppose I should start posting zinging sarcastic one liners as many other posters choose to.

    To answer your question, I see an inherant difference between Bill Gates, Business Owner, and President Carter, Former President. I believe the differences in legitimacy in Foreign Policy between the two is obvious, but you are certainly free to disagree.

    In any event, when a private Citizen contrevenes the Foreign Policy of the United States, it is still wrong in my view. What that is is anarchy, when anyone can do anything they like, if they think it's right. For example, many disagree with the Cuban Embargo (I myself do as well). However, that disagreement does not give me, a private citizen, the right to go to Cuba whenever I like, meet with Castro, and engage in "helping heal the US/Cuba split".

    Ach. There I go pontificating again.:(

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2494970]The Israelis continues to build settlements and the Palestinians could not curb the terror attacks.[/QUOTE]

    The settlements are a disgrace and criminal but they are the direct result of what you like to call blow back from Palestinian attacks. In the Clinton peace talks they were ready to tear down settlements or trade other land and another intifada started that ultimately swept a hard line government into power in Israel that created more settlements.

    You argue Hamas has nothing to gain by recognizing Israel but that of course it's fine to talk to them. They have everything to gain at this point. What does Hamas lose by recognizing Israel's right to exist side by side peacefully on pre 67 borders and offered a truce to negiotate and than an extended truce to begin the remedy? They would gain huge leverage with the moderates in both Israel and the US and gain both the moral high ground and pressure the center in Israel to step up to the plate.

    The constant attacks the preamble to their charter to destroy Israel has just not worked and it has allowed Israel's hard liners to put in place their agenda which ultimately has been terrible for both sides. Blow back is a two way street.

  17. #17
    [URL="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422652363&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422652363&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull[/URL]
    For an Israeli analysis of the results of Carter's mission.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2495043]Speech? Just an opinion is all. Sorry if you felt I was pontificating. I suppose I should start posting zinging sarcastic one liners as many other posters choose to.

    To answer your question, I see an inherant difference between Bill Gates, Business Owner, and President Carter, Former President. I believe the differences in legitimacy in Foreign Policy between the two is obvious, but you are certainly free to disagree.

    In any event, when a private Citizen contrevenes the Foreign Policy of the United States, it is still wrong in my view. What that is is anarchy, when anyone can do anything they like, if they think it's right. For example, many disagree with the Cuban Embargo (I myself do as well). However, that disagreement does not give me, a private citizen, the right to go to Cuba whenever I like, meet with Castro, and engage in "helping heal the US/Cuba split".

    Ach. There I go pontificating again.:([/QUOTE]

    I like zingers!!!

    I didn't mean any offense by saying "speech"

    Obviously you already know I don't see this Carter thing as a big deal, I do however think your Cuba analogy does not fit.

    From my understanding (and I could be wrong) Carter isn't trying to get Hamas and the US to sit down, but two other countries.

    I think a better analogy would be if you decided to take it upon yourself to go to Darfur and speak with the leaders of the Janjaweed militia to try and broker some sort of peace accord.

    I know we are very interested in the events going on in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas, but in truth, we are not one of the principal governments involved, at least, we shouldn't be.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2494970]The Israelis continues to build settlements and the Palestinians could not curb the terror attacks.[/QUOTE]no i meant what part of the negotiations fell apart?

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=piney;2495077]I know we are very interested in the events going on in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas, but in truth, we are not one of the principal governments involved, at least, we shouldn't be.[/QUOTE]

    I believe we are inextricably tied to the region and the nations within, because of our dependance on their Oil.

    So even if we are not a direct party between Hamas and Israel, we are still an ally of Israel and have interests in their welbeing, and we are tied to the peace or warfare of the region as a whole. I do not believe we can simply choose to be uninvolved. Not as the world stands today at least.

    Again, all I need to hear is that those who support Carter now would equally support Bush doing similar in the future. I support neither.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us